Topic: Apple v. Samsung

In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent skirmish, Samsung on Thursday argued against an Apple-sought permanent injunction, saying such an order could have long-lasting repercussions for the Korean tech giant.

A U.S. district court on Wednesday ordered Samsung will not be sanctioned for the disclosure of confidential Apple-Nokia patent licensing, and will instead place blame on the Korean tech giant's counsel Quinn Emmanuel.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday entered an order granting in part Apple's summary judgment for the upcoming Apple v. Samsung trial, finding Samsung to infringe on one patent, while invalidating another belonging to the Korean company.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Oh-Hyun Kwon have agreed to attend a mediation session by Feb. 19, about one month before the two tech titans are scheduled to return to the courtroom for yet another round of patent litigation.

Global electronics heavyweights Apple and Samsung are said to have renewed efforts to peacefully resolve their years-long legal battle over Samsung's infringement on Apple patents before the parties head back to court next year.

Apple on Thursday filed a motion to renew its ongoing bid to stop sales of Samsung products found to be infringing on three key utility patents, including the contentious '915 property for pinch-to-zoom functionality.

A jury of eight granted Apple $290 million in damages from rival Samsung on Thursday, in exchange for the South Korean electronics maker copying the patented software and hardware designs of the iPhone and iPad.

More than week into the retrial between Apple and Samsung, jurors are still deliberating how much money to award Apple for patent infringement by Samsung. But the jury has already come to a negative conclusion about their daily sourdough bread sandwiches.

In the Apple v. Samsung damages retrial on Tuesday, attorneys for each side offered their respective closing pitches to jurors -- one of which prompted Samsung to call for a mistrial -- as a decision is close at hand.

Apple and Samsung counsel finished the testimony phase in the pair's damages trial on Monday, leaving only closing remarks before the jury will deliberate and ultimately decide what amount the Korean company owes for infringing on certain patents.

Continuing the Apple v. Samsung retrial, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Friday entered a motion that takes four patents-in-suit out of consideration for damages on lost profits, while Apple's Phil Schiller further explained how his company was harmed by Samsung's copycat devices.

As the Apple v. Samsung trial continues in San Jose, California, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller testified on Thursday, explaining the risks involved in developing and bringing to market a new device like the iPhone.

In his opening comments of the patent damages retrial, Samsung's attorney Bill Price told the jury a very different story about his client's patent infringement, admitting guilt and acknowledging the price would be high.

Following a day-long selection process, a jury of six women and two men was picked on Tuesday to hear Apple and Samsung fight over millions of dollars in damages vacated from the landmark Apple v. Samsung patent trial.

Apple's former head of iOS Scott Forstall, along with current SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, may be called to testify in the company's forthcoming retrial over $450 million worth of damages from Samsung.

One week after the Obama administration's veto of an import ban affecting Apple helped to send the company's stock up $6.9 billion, news of an import ban affecting Samsung has again helped Apple's market value gain ground, this time by almost twice as much.

Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Monday entered a case management order calling for a new trial to recalculate the $450.5 million she found may have been incorrectly awarded by a jury last August.

In a statement filed by Samsung to the Apple v. Samsung court on Monday, the Korean company noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled claim 19 of Apple's "rubber-banding" patent was invalid in a final Office action, a finding that could change the direction of the post-trial proceedings.